Journals / Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

The Effectiveness of Combined Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation and Interferential Current Therapy on Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Study

Transkutanöz Elektrik Sinir Stimülasyonu ve İnterferansiyel Akımın Kombine Tedavisinin Kronik Bel Ağrısına Etkisi: Randomize, Çift Kör, Sham Kontrollü Çalışma

Pages
32–40
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

No improvements were found in the control (sham) group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: There are some electrotherapy studies regarding transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current therapy (IFT), but none have examined their synergistic effects.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, a total of 123 patients were divided into four groups using a computer method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No improvements were found in the control (sham) group.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: There are some electrotherapy studies regarding transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current therapy (IFT), but none have examined their synergistic effects. This investigation was performed to assess the effectiveness of TENS/IFT in relieving chronic low back pain (LBP). Material and Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, a total of 123 patients were divided into four groups using a computer method. Group 1 received TENS, Group 2 IFT, Group 3 combined TENS/IFT, and Group 4 sham TENS/IFT five times a week for 3 weeks. All participants also received hotpack therapy. Lumbar range of motion (ROM) was assessed via an inclinometer and the modified Schober test, and pain during activity was evaluated using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) along with patient and physician global assessments. The Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) was administered to determine functional capacity. Results: Groups 1, 2, and 3 showed significant improvement, but Group 4 showed none (p˂0.001). Group 3 was superior to Group 2 with regard to the RMDQ, VAS, and global assessments (p˂0.001). Conclusion: Combined TENS/IFT was more effective than IFT in improving functional level and decreasing pain during activity in patients with chronic LBP, however it was not superior to TENS therapy alone. The findings of this study offer insight that can be applied to future investigations concerning combined TENS/IFT therapy with different application frequencie and modes or other combined therapies. We observed marked improvement in function and pain during activity with the combination of both therapies; however, improvement was not significantly greater to that achieved with TENS therapy alone. Combined therapy was also superior to the other treatments with respect to doctor and patient global assessments, but this was not significantly different compared with that in the TENS and IFT alone groups. No improvements were found in the control (sham) group.

Özet

Amaç: Transkütanöz elektriksel sinir stimülasyonu (TENS) ve interferansiyel akım (IF) ile ilgili birçok elektroterapi çalışmalar bulunmaktadır, fakat bunların hiçbiri sinerjistik etkilerini incelememiştir. Bu araştırmada, TENS ve IF'nin kronik bel ağrısını azaltmadaki etkinliğini değerlendirmek amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çift kör, plasebo kontrollü çalışmada toplam 123 hasta bilgisayar yöntemi kullanılarak dört gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1 TENS, Grup 2 IF, Grup 3 kombine TENS ve IFT ve Grup 4 sham olarak haftada beş kez 3 hafta boyunca tedavi aldılar. Tüm katılımcılar ayrıca sıcak paket tedavisi aldılar. Lomber hareket aralığı (EHA) inkilinometre ve modifiye Schober testi ile değerlendirildi. Aktivite sırasındaki ağrı ise hasta ve doktorun global görsel analog skalası (VAS) birlikte kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Fonksiyonel kapasiteyi belirlemek için RollandMorris Engellilik Anketi (RMEA) uygulandı.Bulgular: Grup 1, 2 ve 3 anlamlı düzelme gösterirken, Grup 4’te hiçbir düzelme gözlenmedi (p˂0,001). Grup 3 için değerlendirilen RMEA, hasta ve doktor global ağrı skorları Grup 2'den daha üstündü (p˂0,001). Sonuç: Kombine TENS ve IF tedavisi, kronik bel ağrılı hastalarda fonksiyonel seviyeyi arttırmada ve aktivite sırasındaki ağrıyı azaltmada IF'den daha etkiliydi, ancak sadece TENS tedavisinden daha üstün bulunmadı. Bu çalışma bize, farklı uygulama sıklıkları ve modları ile uygulanacak olan kombine TENS / IF tedavisi veya diğer kombine tedavilerle ilgili gelecekteki araştırmalara bir öngörü sunabilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDOĞAN, B. D., EVCİK, D., KONAK, H. E., KİBAR, S., AY, S. (2022). The Effectiveness of Combined Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation and Interferential Current Therapy on Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Study. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 32–40. https://ajindex.com/articles/516780

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012
  2. [PubMed] 2. Buchbinder R, Blyth FM, March LM, et al. Placing the global burden of low back pain in context. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013
  3. [Crossref] [PubMed] 3. Chou R, Huffman LH. Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007
  4. [Crossref] [PubMed] 4. Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014
  5. CD000963. [Crossref] [PubMed] 5. Guzmán J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ. 2001
  6. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC] 6. Moore SR, Shurman J. Combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for treatment of chronic back pain: a double-blind, repeated measures comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997
  7. [Crossref] [PubMed] 7. Jarzem PF, Harvey EJ, Arcaro N, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS] for chronic low back pain. J Musculoskelet Pain. 2005
  8. [Crossref] 8. Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science. 1965
  9. [Crossref] [PubMed] 9. Hughes GS Jr, Lichstein PR, Whitlock D, et al. Response of plasma beta-endorphins to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in healthy subjects. Phys Ther. 1984
  10. [Crossref] [PubMed] 10. Atamaz FC, Durmaz B, Baydar M, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential currents, and shortwave diathermy in knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012
  11. [Crossref] [PubMed] 11. Goats GC. Interferential current therapy. Br J Sports Med. 1990
  12. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC] 12. Ozcan J, Ward AR, Robertson VJ. A comparison of true and premodulated interferential currents. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004
  13. [Crossref] [PubMed] 13. Fuentes JP, Armijo Olivo S, Magee DJ, et al. Effectiveness of interferential current therapy in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 20